SNP counting

[1798]

One of the average estimates for SNPs is 150 years from the poster "Michal".
I have counted the SNPs on the FTDNA tree down to U106 and there are 133 and added on 36 from the Big-Y under U106. That would give a TMRCA of 25,350 R-M207. That may change with more new tests. Most of the SNPs that are on the FTDNA tree are from the Geno2 tests.

[Stevo]

That estimate of 150 years per SNP was based on Big Y testing, while FGC's more extensive y chromosome testing has yielded an estimate of ~89 years per SNP. Vince Tilroe estimates it at ~70 years per SNP, and it could actually be lower.

The takeaway from all of this is that guessing the age of y haplogroups is still very much an inexact science.

[MMaddi]

As Stevo posted, FGC tests significantly more yDNA locations than Big Y does. And, not surprisingly, FGC's test results find more SNPs. So their estimate of the SNP rate is a new SNP about every 90 years or so, roughly one every three generations.

1798 is constantly telling us the SNP rate is one every 150 years. This is based on estimates from the data from Big Y tests. Yet a test with more locations tested gives us a faster SNP rate.

The results from a test with more data covering more of the y is more reliable. Scientists, both professional and amateur, try to use data as close to complete as possible in their analysis. This is just plain common sense which doesn't require a Ph.D!

I doubt that this fact will cause 1798 to revise his "SNP counting" methods. It's obvious that a SNP every 150 years suits his agenda of making R1b and its subclades as old as possible. But others should keep in mind that more comprehensive data suggests that the SNP rate is 40% faster.

So, whenever 1798 offers us his estimate of the age of this or that subclade, reduce his figure by about 40%.

[1798]

That estimate of 150 years per SNP was based on Big Y testing, while FGC's more extensive y chromosome testing has yielded an estimate of ~89 years per SNP. Vince Tilroe estimates it at ~70 years per SNP, and it could actually be lower.

The takeaway from all of this is that guessing the age of y haplogroups is still very much an inexact science.

I read his post. Most of the SNPs that I counted I verified them through my sons Geno2 results and I added 36 SNPs from the Big-Y. If the FGC results show 300 SNPs from M207 down I will take that on board.

[1798]

I read his post. Most of the SNPs that I counted I verified them through my sons Geno2 results and I added 36 SNPs from the Big-Y. If the FGC results show 300 SNPs from M207 down I will take that on board.

If M207 is 25,000 ybp then it would be 147.928994083 years per SNP and 30,000, 177.514792899 years.

[MMaddi]

If M207 is 25,000 ybp then it would be 147.928994083 years per SNP and 30,000, 177.514792899 years.

Keep on counting those matches on the floor! This is a reference to my earlier post at http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...5&postcount=12 about 1798's "SNP counting."

[1798]

Keep on counting those matches on the floor! This is a reference to my earlier post at http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...5&postcount=12 about 1798's "SNP counting."

What are you afraid of?

[Stevo]

What are you afraid of?

For me, the only thing that troubles me about your posts is that you are misleading people, especially people new to genetic genealogy. If it weren't for that, I would totally ignore you.

[1798]

For me, the only thing that troubles me about your posts is that you are misleading people, especially people new to genetic genealogy. If it weren't for that, I would totally ignore you.

You would like to tell all of the newbies how to think. You disrespect the intelligence of the testers.
Furthermore, none of the red-haired women in Ireland have a Y chromosome. I don't know what kind of women you are hanging about with.

[MMaddi]

For me, the only thing that troubles me about your posts is that you are misleading people, especially people new to genetic genealogy. If it weren't for that, I would totally ignore you.

That's exactly the reason that I bother reading his posts and replying. If he wants to engage in deluded arguments to satisfy his need to feel more Irish, fine with me.

But when those to who are new to genetic genealogy take his theories seriously, someone needs to present what the evidence and the scientific consensus is, which do not support his views at all.

[1798]

That's exactly the reason that I bother reading his posts and replying. If he wants to engage in deluded arguments to satisfy his need to feel more Irish, fine with me.

U106 has to be all Germanic so that you can feel more like a Lombard.

[Stevo]

U106 has to be all Germanic so that you can feel more like a Lombard.

U106 is Germanic because its connection to Germanic peoples is so obvious it's like getting hit in the head with a sledgehammer.

[1798]

U106 is Germanic because its connection to Germanic peoples is so obvious it's like getting hit in the head with a sledgehammer.

Is this a U106 map from 4000 years ago?

[1798]

Here is a map of P312. http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/144/ Do you see any P312 testers in your Germanic regions?

[MMaddi]

U106 has to be all Germanic so that you can feel more like a Lombard.

I didn't start out in genetic genealogy hoping to find that my ancestry is Germanic. Frankly, I was hoping that my yDNA haplogroup would be J2 or E1b1b, since those are the second and third most common haplogroups among Sicilians and also found among Greeks at significant percentages. I'm very proud of my Sicilian ancestry and its long connection to the culture of classical Greece, which contributed so much to western civilization.

So it was a big surprise to me that my haplogroup is an R1b subclade that's found mainly in northern Europe (not only in Germany). My specific downstream subclade is probably found among less than 1% of Italian, including Sicilian, men. That's based on data from two scientific studies which included testing for U106 and included Italian men. I had to discard any serious thought that my paternal line was originally Greek.

My working theory now is that my paternal line probably came to Italy with the Lombards; they came after the fall of the Roman Empire. I won't bore everyone with the evidence that supports that other than to say that I have a semi-close match who just tested positive for one of my Big Y singleton SNPs. This match has northern Italian ancestry, near where the Lombards first established their rule in Italy. Also, the Lombards ruled parts of southern Italy longer than they ruled in northern Italy. There's other circumstantial evidence, but, again, I don't want to bore you or others.

Your wish is to believe that your paternal line has been in Ireland since the Mesolithic. My wish was that I could be a descendant of Plato, who spent some time in Sicily. I've discarded that as very unlikely, almost certainly not the case, given my haplogroup.

I'm not trying to satisfy my personal identity through genetic genealogy. I'm just trying to find the truth. I can't change who and what my ancestors were, but I would like to know who and what they were.

I suggest that you give up your irrational desire to be "Irish" into the ancient mists of time. You might find that any non-Irish deep ancestry you probably have is just as interesting and something to be as proud about as your Irish ancestry.

Oh, and by the way, I've never said that U106 "has to be all Germanic," as you allege. That's another of your strawman arguments that misrepresent my views. I think people would take you more seriously if you didn't misrepresent those who disagree with you. But you probably don't care if people don't take you seriously, since the only thing that matters to you is that you feel 100% Irish, with no doubts or need to consider the possibility of distant non-Irish ancestry.